Appeal No. 2003-0785 Application 09/457,816 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)]. Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this appeal these claims will all stand or fall together as a single group [brief, page 5]. Consistent with this indication appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to any of these claims. Accordingly, all these claims will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, we will consider the rejection against independent claim 2 as representative of all the claims on appeal. The examiner finds that Boutaghou teaches a disc drive in which a flexible circuit has a substrate made of polyamide or “other preferably suitable material.” The examiner asserts that the artisan would be aware of other preferably suitable materials, and the examiner cites Lambert as teaching “Vectran,” a liquid crystal polymer (LCP) that appellants disclose as being 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007